GRAND RAPIDS, MI – So if state law prohibits a city from passing an ordinance to make marijuana use a civil infraction, is it okay for a city charter amendment to do the same?

Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth answers by paraphrasing Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” in a brief filed in Kent County Circuit Court, where a hearing is scheduled Wednesday, Jan. 9, in his case against marijuana decriminalization in Grand Rapids.

“The city cannot circumvent the policy of the state by arguing that they aren’t really adopting a city ordinance, but only a charter amendment that has the precise effect a city ordinance would have,” Forsyth writes. “Call it a charter amendment. Call it an ordinance. By any other name, it smells the same.”

Forsyth in December sued to stop implementation of a voter-approved city charter amendment that would change possession and use of marijuana in Grand Rapids from a crime to a civil infraction. Decriminalization is on hold pending the lawsuit.

Forsyth claims the charter amendment, which prohibits city police from referring marijuana violations to anyone other than the city attorney, effectively usurps his authority as county prosecutor. The city, the ballot initiative group DecriminalizeGR and the ACLU of Michigan all have weighed in on the matter. Here are some of the arguments made in Forsyth’s response:

“The power of the people is not unlimited. The people of the city of Grand Rapids could not adopt a charter amendment permitting racial discrimination, or outlawing private schools within the city limits, or precluding a prosecutor for murder of people considered by the city to be undesirable. While cities unquestionably enjoy great latitude to legislate where they have power to do so, no city has the right to interfere with the right and the power of the prosecutor to bring an action for a violation of state law."

“The effect of this policy will be to remove the constitutionally delegated discretion of the county prosecutor to decide whether to prosecute for a violation of state law, and place that discretion in the hands of the Grand Rapids city attorney. A more blatant violation of the constitutional prerogatives of the prosecutor is difficult to imagine.”